Texas Closed Its Investigation Against These Parents. Why Are Their Names on a Child Abuse Registry?
A medical dispute over jaundice treatment prompted the state to take custody of Rodney and Temecia Jackson’s daughter for more than three weeks.

A Texas couple is still listed on a state child neglect registry, even though the allegations against them were dismissed and their child returned to them. The couple is now suing the state, arguing that being listed on the registry violates their rights to due process.
Rodney and Temecia Jackson are a married couple with three children living near Dallas, Texas. Following two caesarian births, Temecia and Rondey chose to hire a licensed midwife and have a home birth for their third child. The Jacksons' daughter—identified in the suit as "M.J."—was born healthy on March 21, 2023. According to their lawsuit, the Jacksons took M.J. to a nearby pediatrician's office for a routine visit three days after she was born. While there, a nurse noted that M.J. had signs of jaundice, a common condition in newborns. The couple scheduled a follow-up appointment and left without issue.
Later that day, Dr. Anand Bhatt called the Jacksons and told them that M.J. needed to go to a local neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to be treated for signs of jaundice. However, instead of going to the hospital, the Jacksons consulted with their midwife, who told them they could treat M.J.'s jaundice at home with "enhanced nutrition, phototherapy, and monitoring."
That night, Bhatt attempted to call Temecia. When she didn't answer (according to the suit, she was napping and her phone was silenced), Bhatt called the police and asked them to conduct a welfare check. After the police came to the Jackson's home, Rodney "called Dr. Bhatt expressing his frustration that Dr. Bhatt sent the police to his home without contacting him first" and informing him that M.J. was being treated by a midwife, according to the suit. That night, Bhatt attempted to contact the Jacksons' midwife, and "texted the Jacksons in a group text giving them instructions for treating M.J. at home if they chose not to go to the hospital," according to the suit.
Before waiting for the Jacksons' midwife to respond, Bhatt reported the couple to the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), alleging possible medical neglect. Bizarrely, Bhatt told DFPS that M.J.'s mother was a woman named Nichovia Nichols, not Temecia Jackson. The suit notes that Bhatt "did not mention he had given [the Jacksons] alternative advice for treating M.J. without taking her to the hospital." Further, the suit alleges that when the Jacksons' midwife called Bhatt a few hours later, Bhatt told her that he would leave the family in her care. However, he didn't call DFPS to retract his allegations of medical neglect.
Earlier that day, a DFPS investigator came to the Jacksons' house with several police officers. When the Jacksons used their legal right to refuse police entry without a court order, the investigator left and successfully obtained an order allowing DFPS to take M.J. However, the investigator's application contained detailed descriptions of Nichols' past run-ins with DFPS, erroneously assuming that she was M.J.'s mother. After law enforcement seized M.J., it took her parents more than three weeks to get her back.
Even though DFPS' case against the Jacksons was dismissed, the couple soon found that their ordeal wasn't over. Soon after regaining custody of their daughter, the couple received letters "informing them that DFPS had found 'reason to believe' that they medically neglected M.J. and that they would be put on the Central Registry for perpetrators of child abuse or neglect," the suit states. "The Jacksons were not notified that such a designation was possible, nor allowed the opportunity to defend themselves before they were placed on the Central Registry."
While the couple has attempted to challenge the designation, they've only managed to be downgraded from "reason to believe" to "unable to determine," keeping them on the registry. Being placed on a child abuse and neglect registry is incredibly frustrating for the Jacksons, who fear both the social stigma of being on the registry and the possibility that it will lead to their children being removed again. The suit seeks to challenge the state's rules around putting parents on the child abuse and neglect registry, claiming that current procedures denied them their due process rights.
"She should have been safe in our arms. Instead, she was abruptly separated from us, losing the vital bond every newborn needs. We were left fearing for her well-being. She is now a healthy and thriving toddler, but our family is still healing from the nightmare that DFPS caused," the Jacksons said last week in a press release. "No parent should ever have to experience the trauma of being torn from their baby. We hope the court's power to hold DFPS accountable means that no other family has to endure our pain—simply for choosing midwifery."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just to point out, back duy the defund the police fad it was claimed that we needed a bunch of social workers who wouldn't just randomly kill black dudes. That would solve everything. I pointed out at the time that we had already tried that with DCFS. Yeah they don't carry guns but they'll bring armed cops with them. They probably won't kill you but they will kidnap your kids. And. You will not get a court appointed attorney to defend you. If you can't afford an attorney you're fucked and even if you can you're probably still fucked. When some asshole medical professional can use the awesome power of the state to steal your kids with absolute impunity you have zero due process. I'd rather take my chances with the local sheriff than these thugs.
The AMA didn't get its cut, so this couple must suffer the consequences.
Isn't this the fault of the Doctor ? I mean everybody seems at fault for something, but I'm saying he started it. Doctors dont get QI.
I suspect that a deep dive of the situation will likely turn up a statutory requirement to report.
Oh yes, I know those. My issue is no retraction after contact was made. I almost never hear of retraction of claims, even in case of error or discovery of new information.
Again. These prosecutions are technically civil matters designed to deprive parents of constitutional guarantees they might enjoy if they were criminally charged with abuse. But the penalty can be state sanctioned kidnapping. And yes medical professionals are required to report whether their motives are good or otherwise which creates a de facto immunity. The bureaucrats don't give a shit one way or another but they also enjoy immunity and their primary motivation is to protect their phoney baloney jobs. Stealing somebody's newborn is all in a day's work. Abusing or assaulting a child is a crime and anyone one who does so should be prosecuted and be able to defend themselves. The suspicion or animus of some guy at the hospital leading to the state stealing your kids is not due process enough for me.
I am not commenting on their inclusion on any registry nor the legal issues of the case. They had a VBAC at home with only a midwife. Then they disregard an actual doctor telling them to go get their child treated at a hospital.
A woman gives birth at home like women have for thousands of years and somehow the species survives. The only flaw is that your mother didn't make your father use a rubber.
I swear, this level of stupidity is exhausting.
A woman gives birth at home like women have for thousands of years and somehow the species survives.
Bruh, for thousands of years the local blacksmith also doubled as the local dentist. And yet, in modern times, if you ignore the warnings of your dentist and declare your decision to instead head on down the the RenFair to get your kid some oral surgery - yea, you're probably going to attract attention from people who have some serious questions about your ability to parent in a first world society.
Come on dude. Don't be retarded.
Ugh, another Emma Camp "taking the allegations of the complaint as absolute fact" article.
First, let's point out something really important. For all the blathering Emma does about the facts, at the end of the day this is a Dec Relief action. Everything leading up to it - the midwife, the doctor, the cops, DFPS - none of it actually matters. Their gripe is with 40 Tex. Admin. Code § 707.495.
A layman might think after Emma's framing, it wouldn't be - but that's because she's a manipulative hack narrativist interested more in pandering to emotion than in dealing with fact.
To correct this, I'M going to start with an alternative theory, and then shore it up with actual facts.
The pediatrician. Dr. Anand Bhatt. He seemed awfully invested in this baby.
OK, so I'm not a doctor, but let's make the reasonable assumption that Dr. Bhatt was at least as interested in the health of this baby as I am as a casual reader coming across this story and willing to do a few google searches to learn what Emma doesn't bother to investigate as a LoL JoUrNaLiSt. He's been their family pediatrician for over a decade, they clearly trust him, and he has expressed a legitimate medical concern for the health and welfare of the child. Enough so that he felt compelled to follow up several times.
So, jaundice baby, pretty common - bilirubin - but dangerous if untreated. And this wasn't a hospital birth with competent medical professionals.
Here's mah theory: I'm guessing he had a problem with the midwife, and the fact that the parents were running everything from him through her. I'll bet he quite reasonably considered this not in the baby's best interest.
See, from the complaint, this is grossly misleading: So, the Jacksons reached out to their midwife, Dr. Cheryl Edinbyrd
No, not that kind of doctor. Not like Dr. Bhatt, who is an actual doctor.
"PhD, LPC, LCDC, CYT, LMT, Health & Fitness Coach, Licensed Esthetician and Licensed Midwife"
So, basically like Joe Biden's truly evil wife.
Oh wait, dive deeper - let's see what that PhD is that allows her to parade herself as a "doctor." Ahh, oh, this is... hmm. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Christian Counseling from Newburgh Theological Seminary. Oooh, let's go even deeper. Oh, so this is a 30-hour online course in non-denominational quasi-Christian quackery.
Delivering and caring for a newborn, and ignoring the actual medical advice of an actual doctor. And Dr. Bhatt, realizing he was going to lose the battle against these idiot parents and their not-a-doctor midwife, gave them all the actual medical advice he could.
And then "didn't call DFPS to retract his allegations."
Because why would he?
Now, in fairness, the whole "Nichovia Nichols" aspect is weird. I'll grant you that. But regardless how you attempt to interpret it, the fact remains that a VBAC baby, in Bhatt's medical opinion, that needed hospital attention was being neglected by the parents on the advice of a quack midwife.
So why would he retract the allegations?
Because he wasn't wrong to.
And that's why this suit is against DFPS, and not Dr. Bhatt. And it's why it's a Dec Action and not a tort suit.
While the couple has attempted to challenge the designation, they've only managed to be downgraded from "reason to believe" to "unable to determine," keeping them on the registry.
Because, at the end of the day, "unable to determine" is a pretty good description of parents of a newborn listening to a quack instead of their long-trusted pediatrician when it comes to making a conclusion on whether that's neglectful.
Not unreasonable what the Dr. Bhatt did. Does it make their parents neglectful? YMMV. So, "unable to determine."
And, eh, let's not go down the rabbit hole of 40 Tex. Admin. Code § 707.495. I mean, we could, but they're just complaining about it. Their first four demands are "ME NO LIKEY." The next is "take us off the registry" (which they'll probably lose on). The last two are boilerplate.
My guess is that they don't like feeling like OJ Simpson. "They couldn't find me guilty, but we know what everyone thinks."
Well, maybe that's a pretty good argument for having your baby in a hospital with real doctors, instead of in a bathtub with a quack. And for listening to the doctors instead of the quack when they express legitimate medical concerns.